Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.


A Delhi court dismissed as “not maintainable” a complaint seeking registration of FIR against G E Vahanvati, H R Bhardwaj and Prithviraj Chavan for allegedly abusing their offices to “shield” Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav in a disproportionate assets case.
Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal dismissed the complaint saying the complaint originates from a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court which had already been disposed of.

“The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition (filed by advocate Vishwanath Chaturvedi seeking probe in disproportionate assets of Mulayam Singh, his son Akhilesh Yadav, Prateek Yadav and Dimple Yadav) finally on March 1, 2007 and closed the same.

According to the court, “No court whatsoever is empowered to reopen and interfere in orders of the Supreme Court and interference, if any, would amount to contempt of court which would be liable for action.”

“The complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed,”According to the judge.

The court also noted that on December 13, 2012 the Supreme Court had in a review petition filed by Akhilesh Yadav passed an order that CBI may take independent action as it considers fit on the basis of the enquiry conducted by it …without seeking any direction from the Centre.

The order came on a complaint filed by Chaturvedi seeking registration of FIR against Vahanvati for allegedly abusing his office during his tenure as Solicitor General, Bhardwaj, who was then the Law Minister and Chavan, then Minister in charge of personnel department during UPA-I.

The complaint also names as accused CBI DIG Tilottama Varma and also two other CBI officials.

Chaturvedi submitted in the court that “Vahanvati, Bhardwaj and Chavan had conspired with other officials to shield Yadav and his family in the disproportionate assets case after the SP leader agreed to support UPA-I during the July 22, 2008 trust vote.”
In the legal opinion on the matter, the complainant said, “Vahanvati had opined that Yadav has satisfactorily explained his wealth and assets and that the assets of his family should not be clubbed with his wealth as nowhere has it been alleged that they were holding benami properties in his name.”


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz